LAWRENCE S. ROBERTS AND LARRY ROBERTS, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Real Estate Commission denied a broker's motion to quash an administrative complaint alleging he failed to return a $2,000 earnest money deposit when a real estate transaction failed to close. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the complaint was factually insufficient to provide adequate notice of the charges under the applicable statute.
The complaint was factually insufficient because it failed to allege the reason why the sale failed to close or whether Roberts became legally liable to return the deposit. Under § 475.26 F.S., facts must be alleged in concise, simple language sufficient to enable a person of ordinary understanding to prepare a defense.
[1] An administrative complaint must allege facts in concise, simple language that afford notice of the charge, enabling a person of ordinary understanding to reasonably pres…
[2] An administrative complaint alleging a violation of the real estate licensing statute for failure to deliver property is factually insufficient if it does not allege the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The facts [in an administrative complaint] shall be alleged in concise, simple language, and shall be deemed to afford notice of the charge, if a person of ordinary understanding may reasonably be enabled to present his defense thereto”
Establishes the statutory standard for sufficiency of factual allegations in administrative complaints under § 475.26 F.S.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence S. Roberts, an individual broker, and his corporation Larry Roberts, Inc., negotiated a sale of Roberts's own property to Gateley. The contra…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
STETTIN, HERBERT, Associate judge.
Petitioners seek review by certiorari of an order of the Florida Real Estate Commission denying their motion to quash an administrative complaint. The complaint was filed against both the individual broker, Lawrence S. Roberts, and Larry Roberts, Inc., a registered corporate broker, alleging that Roberts individually negotiated a sale of his own property to Gateley. Part of the contract of purchase and sale required Roberts to hold a $2,000 deposit “in escrow subject to this contract. . It thereafter developed the sale did not close and Gateley demanded the return of his $2,000. The complaint alleges Roberts did not return the money to Gateley because he did not have it.
These facts are claimed to be a violation of § 475.25(l)(c) and (d) F.S., a part of the real estate licensing statute condemning the failure to deliver to any person any personal property which comes into the licensee’s hands which is not his property, which he is not in law or equity entitled to retain under the circumstances, and for which demand by the person entitled has been made. Other counts in the complaint relate to the same facts.
The petitioners’ motion to quash raised various grounds but only the argument as to factual sufficiency of the administrative complaint is necessary for disposition of the case.
Section 475.26 F.S. states in part:
“The facts [in an administrative complaint] shall be alleged in concise, simple language, and shall be deemed to afford notice of the charge, if a person of ordinary understanding may reasonably be enabled to present his defense thereto
The facts alleged here do not reach the reason why the sale failed to close, and whether Roberts thereby became legally liable to return the $2,000 deposit to Gateley. If Roberts had a right to treat the deposit as forfeit he would not be liable for failing to deliver the money to Gateley. There are special conditions to the closing described in the contract of purchase and sale from which the failure to close may be presumed, but there are no concise simple allegations of fault. Without these facts a person of ordinary understanding could not be expected to prepare his defense. See Ursoleo v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. den. 287 So. 2d 685 (Fla.); and Sandin v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 187 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
The petition for certiorari is granted. The Order denying Motion to Quash is reversed with leave to the Florida Real Estate Commission to amend the complaint.
DOWNEY, C. J., and BERANEK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thalgott v. Thalgott, 571 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…he plaintiff’s evidence. See, e.g., Dodge v. Weiss, 191 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); SGS Enters., Inc. v. Cates, 547 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); In re Estate of McCoy, 445 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); [*1371] Underground Supply Co. v. Mason, 365 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In the case at bar, not only had appellee not completed her evidence in support of her petition for increased child support, she had not presented any testimony at the hearing directed to that issue. Notwithstanding the posture…
-
Reza Seyedin and Linda Seyedin v. Nikolits, 676 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…a right to testify as to the value of his own property. Appellants should have not been cut short by the court’s premature grant of involuntary dismissal prior to the time that appellants rested their case. See also Underground Supply Co. v. Mason, 365 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited
- Carter Sandin v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & M. Graham Hicks, 187 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Jewell M. Ursoleo v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Harold T. Mooney, 281 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Haskell M. Liberman v. Deem Inv. Corp., 287 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1973)